Fake-covid test developers Carl Smythe, U of Sheffield, Paraytec Limited, and a "virus" FOI
September 16, 2023
Greetings and Best Wishes,
In a May 2023 newsletter I reported the fact that Carl Smythe - a man who acts as Professor of Cell Biology, University of Sheffield - had been falsely claiming on twitter that I was withholding an important “virus” FOI response from his university.
Carl had tweeted (using an account, @carlsmythe, that was later banned) various statements about me, including that:
"Ms Massey tried to get my institution via a FOI request to declare that it did not have any proven SARS-Cov2 virus samples. Unfortunately for her, we do. Poor Christine."
Prior to that newsletter, I had reached out to Carl to clear things up (see pg1 here, and here) but he didn’t respond.
And I had filed a 2nd FOI to the university to get copies of my earlier communications with them (which I had lost), and then published the response… wherein zero records of the imaginary "SARS-COV-2" being found in and purified from any sick person on Earth were provided or cited, thereby showing that Carl had been making false/misleading claims about me hiding a significant FOI response.
In their response, the university staff had actually refused to even conduct a search, claiming that it would take 21 - 43 hours to do so (despite many other universities having responded without difficulty - no records!).
Nevertheless Carl persisted with his tweets (using his new twitter handle @CarlSmytheCells), calling me a “liar”, etc. Here is a new tweet of Carl’s from just last night. It’s a pointless screenshot of my FOI to the university, so heavily redacted (not by me) as to be completely useless.
At the time of publishing that earlier newsletter, I had responded to the university’s initial refusal to do a search by asking that the staff conduct a refined version of my request, limited to records in the possession/custody/control of Carl and the people responsible for the University's fake-covid policies.
I awaited their response to that modified request.
Update
On June 1, 2023 Elspeth Summerfield, acting as Assistant Data Protection Officer in the University Secretary's Office, responded (see p20) by quoting my entire request which included the following:
“All studies or reports… describing the purification of "SARS-COV-2" aka "COVID-19 virus" (including any "variants") (via maceration, filtration and use of an ultracentrifuge…where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material… records that describe its purification (separation from everything else in the patient sample…”
As usual, I was clear that I was asking for records of the imaginary virus being separated from everything else in the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement taken from a sick person.
After quoting my request, Elspeth then wrote (see top of p21):
"For clarity, purification refers to the process(es) in which biological substances are progressively enriched, compared with the original source material…”
This is interesting because I didn’t request records describing a mere process. I made clear that an end result was required: separation from everything else in the patient sample.
I also made clear that the patient’s bodily fluid/tissue/excrement must not have been combined with any other source of genetic material before purification of purported “virus” particles.
(Such particles are typically only seen in stressed cell cultures - not seen in clinical samples from patients, let alone purified from them. I’ve only ever seen 2 studies wherein purported “viruses” were even seen in EMs of patient samples, and they were not purified - which is required for valid scientific study).
Analytical chemist Saeed Qureshi reviewed Elspeth’s clever reworking of my request and noted:
“Progressive enrichment is, in fact, another name for what has been done all along. Culturing the swab sample and then treating it (like mixing with stuff, ultracentrifugation), which has been considered “isolation,” is now given a new name/label, “progressive enrichment.” They are using new terminology with the hope that you will not understand and will accept their view as authentic/scientific.”
A new low in “virus” FOI responses.
Records alleged to exist… but exempt from public scrutiny
Elspeth continued (pg21):
“…We can confirm that the University holds “studies or reports” within the scope you have requested outlined above. However, having considered your request carefully, we judge that the information is exempt from disclosure…"
Elspeth claimed that records are held by the University, but cited provisions of the legislation that exempt them from disclosure based on 1) an intention for future publication, and 2) the fact that they were obtained in the course of, or derived from, a program of research.
Note that Elspeth referred to ““studies or reports” within the scope you have requested.”
Given that:
1) Elspeth had just finished implying that my request was for records describing a process and not necessarily with the end result of separation from everything else in the patient sample, and possibly involving the addition of genetic material,
2) 217 institutions in 40 countries have already been challenged and failed to cite even 1 record of the alleged “SARS-COV-2” being found in and separated from everything else in the patient sample,
3) the CDC and other institutions have failed to cite any such record for dozens of other alleged “viruses”,
4) “viruses” have never been shown to exist,
5) the records she refers to are being withheld…
…I’m ~pretty confident~ that Elspeth is actually referring to unscientific studies that did not result in suspected “virus” particles being separated from everything else in the patient sample, or even necessarily found in a patient sample.
Such studies lack a valid independent variable and adequate controls, and rely on circular reasoning and irrational assumptions - the norm in virology.
Because virology isn’t a science.
Commerce first: Carl Smythe, University of Sheffield and Paraytec Ltd
Next, Elspeth went on to discuss a commercial relationship between the University of Sheffield and Paraytec Ltd, and a research programme led by Carl.
“In relation to your request, the “studies or reports” you have requested form part of an ongoing research programme between the University of Sheffield and Paraytec Ltd, led by Professor Smythe of the University of Sheffield’s School of Biosciences, which will lead to future publication.
We judge that disclosure of studies or reports at this point… could allow for misinterpretation and manipulation of the research, with the potential for this to be used in support of pseudo-scientific claims.
We also judge that disclosure of the information would .. and jeopardise the University’s relationship with its commercial partners.
Additionally, we judge that disclosure of the data at the current time would be likely to prejudice the peer review process...
…We recognise a public interest in the openness and transparency of research… and in ensuring that value for money is achieved… and that commercial partnerships can be scrutinised.
However, there is also a public interest in allowing researchers to carry out their research and reach conclusions before their reports and studies are scrutinised externally…
…we feel the greater public interest lies in allowing the research programme to continue with its planned publication.”
(I’ll get back to the commercial relationship further below.)
I responded to Elspeth (pg23), pointing out that I had requested records describing separation [of the alleged virus] from everything else in the patient sample, not simply a process whereby biological substances are progressively enriched compared with the original source material.
(The request for not for records describing separation of the alleged virus from some of the other stuff in the patient sample - but all of the other stuff.)
An internal review was conducted, resulting in a very interesting email from Luke Thompson, acting as Head of Data Protection & Legal Services.
Impossible to answer
Luke wrote (see pg 26) (emphasis is mine):
"I have decided to uphold the initial response you received... I know you disagree with the interpretation of certain terms however GIVEN YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.”
Hmm now why would it be impossible to answer a clearly stated request for records of an alleged virus being separated from everything else in a sample of bodily fluid, tissue or excrement?
Unless of course… there are no records and admitting that there are no records would make fraud/incompetence/delusion on the part of Carl and the folks at University of Sheffield and Paraytec Ltd just a little too obvious.
Just wondering out loud here.
And since when are FOI staff authorized to project their own intentions/agenda onto someone else’s FOI request? I’ve never seen legislation with any such provision.
Luke, acting as Head of Data Protection & Legal Services, continued:
“We are, under section 16 FOIA 2000, providing you with advice and specialist guidance in an effort to ensure we provide you with a response, rather than providing you with ‘no information held’ which would be misleading for anybody who views that response."
So Luke made clear that he/“we” didn't want to provide a no-records response.
Luke made clear that he/“we” would rather uphold Elspeth’s “specialist guidance” implying that my request was for records describing a process in which biological substances are progressively enriched, compared with the original source material... because they don't want to mislead anyone.
Isn’t that special?
Luke continued:
“After speaking to colleagues within the University we have tried to assist in breaching the gap of knowledge, interpretation and understanding and want to provide you with the information you are seeking. We will do this when we release the information requested, which for the time being is exempt. It is our intention to release the information you have requested into the public domain at which time your request will be answered in full.”
That’s funny, I don’t recall asking for assistance with an alleged gap in my knowledge, interpretation or understanding.
So Luke and his special colleagues within the University decided that pretending I asked for something that isn’t quite what I asked for, and withholding the records that he and Elspeth referred to, and letting people scrutinize them ~whenever~ in the future, and insisting that the greater public interest lies in putting private commercial interests ahead of transparency and accountability, is the best way to go.
Even though the record(s) in question relate, literally, to a world-wide lockdown.
I’m not aware of a study from Smythe/Sheffield/Paraytec being published yet, and to be honest have not checked. Right now I am just sharing what I collected a few months ago and this story will be continued, no doubt.
Carl Smythe, University of Sheffield, Paraytec Ltd (Braveheart Investment Group) and a “coronavirus test”
Below are some bits and pieces that I collected a few months ago. Some of it might be out of date, and no doubt someone will look further into this.
"...Braveheart Investment Group PLC (LON:BRH) said its investee Paraytec Limited has completed proof of concept trials for a coronavirus test it is developing with the University of Sheffield.
The investment firm said following the achievement of proof of concept for the optical detection system on October 5, the focus has been on the proof of concept trials for the capture and signal generation modules for the test.
Braveheart said the proof of concept has now been achieved for the capture and signal generation modules, thereby successfully completing the proof of concept trials for the test. Work will now focus on the acquisition of clinically relevant data to facilitate optimisation of the functional capabilities of the test, together with a programme of product refinement and development.
Meanwhile, the company said regulatory approval is currently being sought for live virus trials and the acquisition of clinical data.
"This is a phenomenal achievement for all concerned. The inspirational leadership and innovative brilliance of Professor Carl Smythe and his talented team have resulted in proof of concept in a little over four months", Braveheart chief executive Trevor Brown said in a statement."
Shares in Braveheart soared 25.8% to 45.3p in mid-morning trading on Friday."
https://www.proactiveinvestors.ca/companies/news/931620/braveheart-soars-as-investee-paraytec-completes-proof-of-concept-trials-for-coronavirus-test-931620.html
COVID-19 Optical Measurement Test
In 2020 Paraytec began work on assessing the feasibility of developing a COVID-19 test using the technology and know-how that already existed within the company. Paraytec has partnered in this work with Professor Carl Smythe and his team at the University of Sheffield to provide the proprietary microbiology aspects that are required, with the hardware and software developed by Paraytec."
https://www.paraytec.com/covid-19-test/
Video:
Paraytec lead Covid-19 Professor on sensitivity and specificity of various types of Covid-19 tests
"The clinical sample pipeline for the COVID-19 test developed by Paraytec is now fully operational and Smythe joins Proactive's Katie Pilbeam once again to break down the confusion about the sensitivity and specificity of various types of test. Smythe also breaks down how the test can be used for large numbers of people, a so-called multiplex or matrix test.”
Addendum (later on September 16, 2023, and the next day):
After posting the article above, I decided to write back to Luke for clarification of his response (p29 - 34), and have posted the new emails below and updated the pdf that contains all over our communications.
I asked Luke to respond to the request that I had actually made (as opposed to the imaginary request that he and Elspeth pretend I made). He repeatedly refused and told me to “contact the ICO 0303 123 1113 or www.ico.org.uk”. I don’t think I’ll waste my time on that.
For truth, freedom and sanity,
Christine
Addendum (later on September 16, 2023):
I decided to write back to Luke for clarification of his response and am updating the article with the new communications (Luke responded already).
Not a flattering analogy, perhaps, but the virology status-quo defenders responding (strictly speaking, not-responding) to your FOI requests or non-FOI correspondence behave as if you are a venomous snake that has slithered into the room.
Sometimes they just grab the nearest broom, whack you, and sweep you out the door-- or simply chase you back over the threshold with a terse "no information found" response, then slam the door behind you.
But Smythe and U of Sheffield, et al, eschew the quick "no information found" dismissal because it implicitly supports the streng verboten "viruses never proven to exist" assertion. Instead, they boldly-- if gingerly-- pick up the snake and, using their professional skills of rhetorical obfuscation, attempt to tie it (you) into an impotent ball of wriggling knots.
I notice that you and your fellow "virus not proven" advocates evoke an identical reaction from the virus True Believers you contact. Sometimes there is at first a perfunctory, and relatively polite, response. Unfortunately, it is usually the case that the initial response isn't sufficiently responsive; thus, you patiently and persistently critique the flawed response, which implicitly requires your interlocutors to acknowledge the inadequacy and/or mendacity of their initial response, and provide a more direct and honest, credible response.
This persistence, usually sooner or later, rubs them the wrong way and "triggers" an increasingly hostile and scathingly dismissive endgame. They expect(ed) you to submissively and uncomplainingly swallow their initial unresponsive handwaving, and when you persist they all characterize your rational objections and further pursuit as evidence of confrontational bad faith.
Brimming with cognitive-dissonance generated righteous indignation, they grandstand to their allies and audience in the virus and scamdemic-promoting community. No more Mister Nice Guy! Massey is manifestly a mad or bad "troll" who pathologically stalks critics unless and until they fully agree with her crackpot beliefs. Naturally, all of the status-quo groupthinkers agree that this is so: you are a treacherous, vicious snake who insists on biting even after they have warmed you at their collective bosom. 🐍
After all that, I'm stuck on a punch line. So I will end anticlimactically and affirm that it's not you-- it's them. 🦠 💉 🤨